Clarification or interpretation request: Clarify the effects of Bidder Lesser Quantity Indicator on the disclosure of minimum condition elements for EBB / EDI Download portion of NAESB Standard Number 5.4.25. Does the Offer’s Disclose Indicator or Releasing Shipper Lesser Quantity Indicator have any effect on the disclosure of the minimum condition elements for Bids.

Clarification or interpretation request: of the word Tariff under Informational Posting. NAESB WGQ Standard No. 4.3.23 does not specify if the category Tariff under Informational Posting includes negotiated rates, non-conforming agreements, Volume 2s, and X-rate schedules within the definition.

Group 8760 requests clarification as to whether individual implementations
are free to use the http HEAD command, prior to using the POST command to deliver the NAESB payload. When
implementing a NAESB EDM solution, the standard clearly relies on the http protocol spec for details of how to
implement the protocol. It is also clear that the http POST command should be used, and not the GET command.

CNG Transmission requests clarification of the recall/reput
option of "Recallable, Not Reputtable." CNG Transmission's interpretation of "Recallable, Not
Reputtable" is that upon recall the releasing shipper cannot reput the release, nor can the
releasing shipper release the capacity to another shipper. The capacity is returned to the
releasing shipper for the full duration of the recall.

Request clarification related to the use of only central
clock time values in the date/time data elements for all Capcity Release related datasets
(e.g. Offers, Bids, Awards, Upload to Pipeline or Prearranged Deal, UPPD Validation, Bidder
Confirmation, Final Disposition, Operational Available, Unsubscribed FT, and Critical Notices).
Should all time values be provided as central clock time?

When a Transportation Service Provider has posted a
particular Offer, Bid, or Award (as identified by its "number") and then any one or more of the
values, contained within: a) the quantity(ies) data elements, b) rate data elements, c) any of
the date/time elements (i.e., effective begin/end dates, award dates, bidding period dates,
etc.), d) location data elements, or e) data elements containing codes for the parties to that
Offer, Bid or Award, is different in a subsequent posting of information on that Offer, Bid
or Award, shouldn't the Transaction Set Purpose Code be the code associated with "change"
(Offer) or "resubmission" (Award)?

It would seem that the standards adopted in GISB Standards
Version 1.3 concerning intraday nominations and scheduling (i.e., results of intraday nominations
are reported by means of the scheduled quantities provided in each intraday period and the
results of the timely nominations are reported by means of the scheduled quantities provided
in the timely period) might change the purpose of GISB Standard 1.3.3? In light of this, has
the purpose of GISB Standard 1.3.3 changed?

Current Standard No. 1.3.9 states in part, "Intra-day
nominations should include an effective date and time." Intraday Standard No. 1.3.e states in
part, "Where Transportation Service Providers support the processing of beginning effective
time...". Are these two standards in conflict in so much as in 1.3.9 Beginning Time is sender's
option, but 1.3.e [GISB Standard No. 1.3.43, Version 1.3] says that the TSPs may or may not
support Beginning Time? How can a data element be Sender's Option and Business Conditional at
the same time?

With regard to GISB Standard 1.3.22ii, Version 1.3, for start
of Day should the previously scheduled quantity be the previous Start of Day scheduled quantity
or the last previous scheduled Intra-Day quantity?

Can an Invoice Statement "Beginning Transaction Date" and
"Ending Transaction Date" be defaulted in each transaction to the first day of the month
without accurately reflecting the correct dates associated with the beginning and ending of a
transaction?

In the case that a shipper chooses to accept bids in either
Absolute Dollars and Cents or Percentage of Maximum Tariff Rate, and the TSP elects to support
this practice by calculating the best bid regardless of how received, how does this meet the
applicable standard?

According to Standard 4.3.6 notices are now supposed to
be posted on the Transportation Service Provider's (TSP) Web pages. Does this mean that a
TSP is not required to provide any alternative form of communication for notices, such as
telephone or fax, particularly for those issued outside of business hours and on weekends?

Can a transportation service provider (TSP1) require that
a service requester provide to that TSP1 a DRN belonging to a different TSP (TSP2) in a
nomination to TSP1? In other words, in a nomination from a shipper to TSP1, can TSP1 require
that shipper to provide DRN's for locations that belong to TSP2?

Clarification of terms for Imbalance Standard 2.3.30 --
Order 587-C, Section II.B.2, pp. 14-16. The term to which the FERC has requested
clarification is "similar financial and operational implications" as used in GISB
Standard 2.3.30.

Clarification of terms for OBA Standard 2.3.29 -- Order
587-C, Section II.B.2, pp. 14-16. The term to which the FERC has requested clarification is
"economically and operationally feasible" as used in GISB Standard 2.3.29.

Prior period adjustments are limited to six (6) months
from the date of the initial transportation invoice. Can a pipeline which became GISB
compliant on April 1, 1997 include in its September 1997 transportation invoice a prior
period adjustment for May production.

The above-mentioned standards reference a common topic
surrounding a 6 month time limit for addressing accounting corrections or revisions to
measurement data, allocations and any prior period adjustments as well as the retention
period for such data. It must be made clear that audit rights were preserved (either in
existing contracts or mutally agreed to in subsequent contracts) by these standards.

Standard 2.3.16 states "List of allocation
methodologies agreed upon: Ranked, Pro Rata, Percentage, and Swing". So that these
methodologies can be implemented on a consistent basis, GISB should clarify the
application of each of these methodologies (similar to what was done in Interpretation
C96020 for the Capacity Release Bid Evaluation Methodologies listed in Standard 5.3.3).

Is the 855 Nomination Quick Response always due at
noon even when the 850 nomination request is received earlier that 11:45 am by the
transportation service provider or is it always due 15 minutes later no matter when the
850 nomination request is received? In other words, if a timely nomination is sent in
at 9:30 am and received by the TSP by 9:45 am, will the 855 quick response still be
sent back at noon or does it need to be sent back earlier by 10:00 am (15 minutes
later)?

It should be clarified that the "Nomination Quick
Response" document due at noon as required by GISB standard 1.3.2 is used to validate
the nomination request in implementing the X.12 nomination related data sets and is
not required for the other forms of electronic delivery of Faxes and EBB on-line systems.

Do these standards taken together mean that all
allocated quantities and imbalance statements will at least provide daily quantity detail,
even when the quantities are estimates? Do these standards taken together mean that all
allocated quantities and imbalance statements will also provide monthly quantity detail
even if the quantities are estimates?

Does this standard mean that a new scheduled quantity
will be sent at the end of every gas day? Will the information contained in "End of
Gas Day Scheduled Quantity" include only those transactions scheduled the previous day
including intra-day nominations and scheduling changes regardless of when they were
nominated and confirmed? Will an "End of Gas Day Scheduled Quantity" be sent when the
only change is the date.